Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

lostinrates

BillJones wrote: »

You are seriously asking what achievement level in finance, law, or medicine having on income level?

OK, here goes...

People at the top end in law, finance, or medicine will tend to earn a large amount more than people in those who do not achieve "high flying" status in those professions, or who are still just starting out on that route.

No, that's not what I'm asking.

Though I agree my question was terribly phrased:).


I'll have another go.


You said

BillJones wrote: »

If you are a professional in their mid-30s in London, someone who's towards the top end of achievement in finance, law, or specialised medicine (e.g. consultant orthopedic surgeon who takes on private work), then £200k is not going to take you above "comfortable". It's not going to buy you one of the nicer flats, let alone a nice house, in town, for one thing.]

From which I inferred you feel something about working at that tier of employment requires more money to feel 'comfort'.

I'm simply asking you to expand on what, in your experience that could be, or if my reading of the sentence is wrong perhaps more explaining.

For example....it could be that the hours worked at those levels mean more money is expended in day to say simple economising measures like shopping, cooking or home maintenance because the time isn't available to long hours working high fliers.

I'm simply trying to draw out your experience to aid others in appreciating your perception.

purch

This one of those marvellous comedic MSE threads, where everyone actually agrees with each other but continue arguing just for the sake of it.

:T

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

I think a big part of it is that in the UK, people generally hang out with people that earn to the same level as themselves.

It struck me today: I was chatting to a pretty senior accountant who was telling me about his best mate who is a plumber. There's no way a plumber would hang out with someone who earned as little as a top accountant in Britain.

Yes I think there is a lot of truth in that.

lostinrates

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Once you get past a certain income level (lets say..£150k) salary becomes just a number to measure 'how great you are'.

People on such high salaries are often motivated to gain more and more; because it becomes a measure of how great they are, to themselves. It's not about it being 'sufficient' or not.

That's why high-end income with run away much faster than inflation - because it's a 'race to the top' - rather than most people's 'race to the bottom' salary.

Ringo, welcome. This is specifically a thread about perception of incomes, not a thread on judgment against people on any income.
Besides your 150k threshold, where do you perceive , lets say, a middle lower and upper threshold of earning to rest?

lostinrates

purch wrote: »

This one of those marvellous comedic MSE threads, where everyone actually agrees with each other but continue arguing just for the sake of it.

:T

I'm not agreeing with everyone, I'm just being polite. It would be a different board if a few more tried it, we might all be able to learn more!

Now, on that subject, where is your perception of thresholds of income brackets? Come on, chip in with something other than a quip!

[Deleted User]

From my own perception (Which is based on living just outside of London, coming from a lower-middle class backrgound)... but viewing it from the perspective as someone who's also lived in Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff and Nottingham.

I'd probably put low as under £25k, Middle as 25-45k and high as £45k upwards. 'Very high' i'd say is £80k upwards. It skyrockets from there upwards.

But.. that's abstracting myself from knowing a few millionaires, a few people on > £100k and accepting for the vast majority of the population, salary can be quite 'low' (i.e. under the high tax rate)

I think it's better to perceive these brackets using a socio-economic scale such as:
he Groups A, B, C1, C2, D and E classes the employment job roles into the following:

A – Upper Class (Higher managerial, administrative and professional, such as Mangers, Lawyers, all high paying jobs earning demographic would be around £50,000 and over)

B – Middle Class (Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional, such as deputy secretary and or above average pay, earning demographic would be around £35-50,000)

C1 – Lower Middle class (Supervisory or Clerical, junior managerial, administrative, such as a supervisor or highly skilled working job (one where more than one skill is required))

C2 – Skilled working class (Skilled Manuel workers, such as mechanics, etc)

Please note for C1 and C2 the earning range is for both £15,000 – 25,000

D – Lower working class (Semi and unskilled Manuel workers, such as mechanical trainees, or shop workers, earning demographic would be around £7,000 – 15,000)

E – Lowest level of income earners (pensioners or widows, casual or lowest grade workers, those on Benefits, such as students, earning demographic would be around £5,000-7,000)

ukcarper

BillJones wrote: »

You are shifting the goalposts here now, and I'm not sure why. I know that my friends salary is high relative to the national median, but the thread is about how that is perceived subjectively. Why do you want to keep disregarding the subjective component when that is the very subject of the discussion?

Perhaps that shows how out of touch people in those earning brackets are. I know and can understand that they might think it is not really enough, but if that draws them to the conclusion that it is not a high salary they are very insular.

BillJones

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm simply asking you to expand on what, in your experience that could be, or if my reading of the sentence is wrong perhaps more explaining.

OK, fair enough.

Sticking to London, and to finance...

Hours are very long, I've in the past spent years averaging over 16 hours a day in the past, so that meant that I wanted to live very near my office, as in a few hundred metres walk, so that straight away ramps costs up hugely. To buy the floor space that a nurse in Norwich woudl expect, or a plumber in halifax, in a siilarly nice area, probably costs seven figures. That alone means that you are straight away out of "comfortable" on £200k, if "comfortable" is the same level of housing as the nurse or the plumber.

Then there's the sort of places that friends go out. If your social group regularly has brunch at Nobu, then you probably want to be able to join them. If they all decide to go skiing the followng weekend, then that feels normal, and you;d like to do that too.

You know that you are in a rarefied world at this point (but still a massively pedestrian one next to the Russian gentleman at the next table), but this absolute level of awareness doesn't change the fact that on your current world, "comfortable" costs an awful lot.

I'd bet that it's similar for a consultant orthopedic suurgeon. They'd like to join the same golf club as their friends, wear a very nice suit for the desk part of the job, and live in a nice georgian terrace with a nice car out the front.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

I think a big part of it is that in the UK, people generally hang out with people that earn to the same level as themselves.

It struck me today: I was chatting to a pretty senior accountant who was telling me about his best mate who is a plumber. There's no way a plumber would hang out with someone who earned as little as a top accountant in Britain.

As a result it becomes reinforcing. When I lived in The Barbican the expectation of what constituted a reasonable standard of living was very different to when I lived in West Norwood. The idea of someone having a flat in the French Alps that you could borrow for a week if you fancied going skiing or cycling would have been an utterly alien concept. Completely bizarre. Even stranger would have been the idea that you'd bought a flat in the Alps and felt that you were settling for second best as you couldn't ski out, it was a 10 minute drive to the lifts.

In The Barbican it was normal. I borrowed my mate's little Alpine flat for a fortnight for some cycling. When we go to Europe this Christmas we'll hopefully borrow it again for a day or two.

I really don't know that this is true gen. I know its true in some cases but I can say its not true in my case, or fir's nor in the majority of our personal circle.


I think its true in some parts of uk certainly and some industries probably desk bound ones more. (DH did actually get a comment on it negative
Y in a peer review once, but thankfully management at his place at the time did not suffer from the same affliction of which you speak, its a foolish one and serves noone well)

In rural enterprise you'd be in trouble and without friends, and in other areas I've been involved with too. I think what I'm saying is......in the circles often accused of it it isn't the problem!

I also refute that the 'class' to is a problem only in uk. But you and I have been here before...:D.


Edit, bill jones otoh......:)

BillJones

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps that shows how out of touch people in those earning brackets are. I know and can understand that they might think it is not really enough, but if that draws them to the conclusion that it is not a high salary they are very insular.

You can no more claim that they are oit of touc hthan you can claim that the person at the other end is, too. Each is out of touch with the other, and for neither should this be viewed as a problem.